Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2007 April
2005 February
2005 January
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March
2004 February
2004 January
2003 December
2003 November
2003 October
2003 September
My Links
My essay: The Immorality of Marriage
The Onion
SelectSmart
Games to test your logic, faith, morality, and philosophical ideas!
Tom Robbins Quotes
Funny Name Analysis
Bushisms
Letters From the Earth by Mark Twain
Why I Am Not A Christian by Bertrand Russell
Life, Liberty, Logic
Wasting My Time
RedTigress's Blog
Jimmytherighteous's Blog
Octo6er's Blog
Nivek's Blog
Magicjoejoe's Blog
Littlemrmahatma's Blog
Kurtmaddox's Blog
Winstonsmith's Blog
Drforbush's Blog
Juniperflux's Blog
Iron Blog Religion!
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
| 04.20.07 (9:24 am) [edit] |
| 0 Comments |
| We Are Virginia Tech |
| 04.19.07 (3:26 pm) [edit] |
|
I have not written a blog in over 2 years, and I am sure I have lost my faithful readers, but I feel an undying need to write about the events of April 16, 2007 just a few miles from my home (13.5 miles, according to Google Maps).
A typical Monday in most respects, I was sitting at my desk at work when a co-worker asked if we had heard that there was "another shooting at Virginia Tech." The community had been distraught just months before due to the actions of an escaped prisoner near Virginia Tech. William Morva (someone I had met once or twice as an acquaintance of a friend of mine years before) escaped from a hospital and shot and killed a hospital guard. There was an intense manhunt that ended with Morva killing a sheriff's deputy. Morva was apprehended on the campus of Virginia Tech. This was on the first day of classes of the fall semester. Morva's trial began recently and his actions have not ceased to effect this community. The notion of another shooting in this area was horrifying. We were told that one student had died and 7-8 were injured. As the morning went on, I kept checking the local news' websites for updates. At around 10:30, another co-worker notified us that he had just received an update on his cell phone stating that 20 students had been killed. I was shocked. I honestly did not believe it. I checked the local websites for clarity, but they were still showing the same report - 1 dead, 7 or 8 injured. Foxnews.com, however, showed a different report. In bold letters were the words "20 deaths confirmed." I felt utterly nauseous. As I began reading the article, with only a few details of a shooting rampage, the power went off. Complete darkness, no phones. For a split second, all I could think of was a crazed gunman entering the building. Then I realized that it was only due to the intense wind. Once the power came back on, I frantically checked the news websites for information. I still could not fully grasp the idea of 20 people being shot to death at Virginia Tech, home of the Hokies we all love so much. I continued to work, though it was not at all easy to concentrate. Then I got word that the number of deaths had risen to 32. Just as I cannot truly comprehend $1,000,000, I could not even grasp the concept of so many students being killed by some insane gunman. 32. Once the stories of what transpired in Norris Hall came out, I felt even sicker. The gunman chained shut the doors of the building, locking the students inside, and keeping the police outside. How could anyone be so cruel? And how is it possible that no one was able to prevent this from happening? I knew immediately that the actions of campus authorities would be called into question. Two hours separated the first shooting (2 victims, in a dorm building) and the massacre at Norris Hall. Where were the police and why wasn't the campus on lockdown? No answers could be given that could possilby satisfy the victim's loved ones, but the responses provided do little to ease the minds of anyone concerned over this tragedy. The police were investigating the first shooting while, across campus, 30 people were shot and killed, and over 15 sustained significant injuries. It is difficult to think that this could have been prevented. There were so many warning signs regarding the shooter (I have no desire to cite his name, nor his potential "motives," though none are readily evident)that, in retrospect, he should not have been left in society. The difficult reality is that this tragic event did happen, 32 lives were lost. Though it is only a small action, all the employees at the locally owned and operated grocery store I work for have been wearing maroon and orange ribbons in the days following the tragedy. The day after the shootings took place, a woman was going through the checkout line and saw the ribbons and asked if she could have one. The cashier gave her one and the woman began to cry. She said that she was the mother of one of the victims and she thanked the cashier, adding that it was really good that we were giving ribbons out. I have felt as though there is nothing I can do in this situation, but it turns out that even the smallest of actions can translate into the most meaningful sentiments. The Virginia Tech community has suffered a tragedy of immense proportions this week. There is very little any of us can do, other than show our support and offer our sympathies to the victims' families. The words of VT's resident poet, Nikki Giovanni, sum up the feelings of all affected by this: We are sad today and we will be sad for quite awhile. We are not moving on, we are embracing our mourning. We are Virginia Tech. We are strong enough to know when to cry and sad enough to know we must laugh again. We are Virginia Tech. We do not understand this tragedy. We know we did not deserve it but neither does a child in Africa dying of AIDS, but neither do the invisible children walking the night to avoid being captured by a rogue army. Neither does the baby elephant watching his community be devastated for ivory; neither does the Appalachian infant killed in the middle of the night in his crib in the home his father built with his own hands being run over by a boulder because the land was destabilized. No one deserves a tragedy. We are Virginia Tech. The Hokie Nation embraces our own with open heart and hands to those who offer their hearts and minds. We are strong and brave and innocent and unafraid. We are better than we think, not quite what we want to be. We are alive to the imagination and the possibility we will continue to invent the future through our blood and tears, through all this sadness. We are the Hokies. We will prevail, we will prevail. We are Virginia Tech. |
| 0 Comments |
| Love and/or marriage |
| 02.27.05 (7:44 pm) [edit] |
|
A fairy tale-like story is told in the novel [u]Still Life With Woodpecker[/u] that involves a young princess and a frog. The young princess has this golden ball that she always plays with, until one day she drops the ball in a stream and is unable to retrieve it. While she cries over her loss, a frog hops over to her and tells her that he can get the ball for her, if she promises to let him be a part of her life. She hastily agrees and the frog brings her ball back to her. The young princess runs off with her golden ball, forgetting the frog entirely. Then, the frog finds his way into her house and the King is made aware of the promise his young daughter had made and tells her that she must keep her promise. The girl is disgusted by the frog, and eventually she ends up throwing him against a wall. When he splatters against the wall, the frog turns into a handsome prince. And you know how the story goes, they live happily ever after. While many fairy tale analysts have supplied us with plenty of symbolic explanations for stories such as this, there is one notable contrast between the traditional analyses and that evoked by Tom Robbins. Not to give too much of my favorite novel away, [u]Still Life[/u] examines the significance of the golden ball. The ball is very prominent in the beginning of the story, but no mention is made of it after the girl and the frog become acquainted. Though I admittedly missed the link until having it pointed out to me, the ball is symbolic of giving something up for love. It could be said, then, that we must all ultimately give up something- and not just anything, but something significant, something important to us- in order to gain true love. What we must sacrifice for love is security. One of the things most important to us is our sense of security, and it is something we generally guard very carefully. When it comes to love, there can be no real security. Though we always try and make love seem as though it will last, that there is security in a relationship, the nature of love denies the possibility of absolute security. You cannot force love, you cannot make love a definite- there is always the possibility of love disappearing or changing course. It is in this way that marriage is implausible. Marriage attempts to force security in love, going against the very nature of love. Not only does this make the motives of marrying questionable, it also has the potentiality of wreaking havoc on a pure relationship based on true love. Given that love is present in a relationship when a couple chooses to enter into marriage (or any other form of illogical commitment), the implementation of false promises and unsubstantiated oaths taints the essence of the relationship. Making a promise to be in love for any given time, much less forever, is dishonest and illogical- there is no way of predicting how love will change over time. Love, no matter how powerfully entrenched in a relationship, is not a constant, and attempting to make it so is contrary to its nature. Marriage not only taints the experience of a relationship by attempting to force love, but denies the sanctity of love. It is important, however, to distinguish between various meanings and purposes of marriage. Marriage as a legal contract, marriage as a status symbol, marriage to appease religious doctrine, and marriage for the sake of achiveing the "family unit" is different from marriage as a culminating step of a relationship. Not all couples marry for reasons related to love, but when marriage is viewed as part of the natural progression of a relationship is when love becomes part of the picture. My view is that love is (or should be) the highest value in a relationship. Thus, it is with that view of love that I evaluate marriage. And it is in this light that I deem marriage an undesirable distraction from the pursuit of true, real love, at best; and a means of undermining and perhaps ruining love, at worst. Others are certainly free to view marriage in their own terms, but for anyone who truly wants love, and not some watered down version in which security is feigned, marriage is out of the question. |
| 9 Comments |
| The importance of the individual in society |
| 01.20.05 (7:49 pm) [edit] |
|
Seeing as I haven't updated this blog in over 2 months, I would be surprised if anyone still read this. In many ways, that is inspiring to me right now. I obviously haven't felt like writing in a while, nor have I had the time, but I do miss expressing my thoughts, however scattered and misdirected they may be. To be honest, I have paid scant attention to anything remotely political over the last couple months, and I have to admit that it is likely a good thing. While I do feel that it is possibly important and at least noble to concern yourself with what goes on in your society, in the world, and what shapes your future, it can also be a bit tedious and can lead to a narrow-sighted view of life. If all I am concerned with is politics, it becomes an obsession, and all activities are rated based on this filtered view. News programs and articles have a tendency to distort the true realities of the world, not necessarily by use of misleading facts, but by tainting all stories with certain mindsets- whether it is a liberal bias, conservative bias, or simply the bias of seasoned news reporters who assume a certain standard ideology, which is the most likely, all we receive is a [i]report[/i] of events. All we can hope for, then, is to gain an understanding, however limited, of world events. What would be better, however, would be to truly comprehend the suffering, pain, and aguish; the joy, compassion, and prosperity- all the realities faced in the world. No matter how much time we devote to discussions over the state of world affairs, no matter how many debates we have over abortion rights, reality cannot be experienced and truth cannot be determined by political discussions alone. Reading the newspaper every day of your life will cause you to feel perplexed, often hopeless, and undoubtedly involved in the quibbles and nuances of political dramas, of the murders, thefts, and abuses. Avoiding news stories at all costs will allow you to focus on life, on reality, however limited a reality that may be. While it may be a bit frivolous in some respects, if you were to disregard all that is considered newsworthy on a daily basis, you would develop a mindset in which simplicity prevails. Unconcerned with world (or even national and perhaps local) events, your own life and the interactions with those around you would take center stage. Then you could understand reality. However, though this simplicity may be an attractive alternative to being constantly inundated with news, most of which is bad, I believe most of us have a genuine concern for humanity and foster a desire to change the world for the better. I just think that it is important to keep things in perspective. In the days immediately following the presidential election, I was truly upset. How could such a horrible president as George W. Bush actually win re-election? But, as time went on, it didn't seem to matter that much. Sure, it still sucks that he is the President, but there isn't anything I can do about it. The best way to overcome a disappointment is not to let it overcome you, but to overcome it and prepare to fight the fight once more. Every Thursday, a kid I work with comes in to get his check cashed. We have to charge one cent to cash employee checks. Apparently, to protest the President, you are not supposed to spend any money on the day of his Inauguration. So, this kid, who just turned 17 and couldn't even vote in November, refused to get his check cashed today because he didn't want to spend any money -- not even a penny. As silly as it may sound, this gives me hope. It doesn't matter how grandiose our actions are, so long as they mean something to us. And if others are made aware of them and perhaps inspired, that's great too. If you're wondering, as I admit I am, what my point in all this is, well, let me state it simply. What matters to you is all that matters. What you choose to pay attention to is what is important to you. And how you shape your actions in response to your ideas is what determines the outcome for humanity, good or bad. I'll admit that I'd like to change the world for the better, but I know that this starts on the individual level. We as individuals control the outcome of our lives. It is in our interactions that we shape our societies, our world. Now, I can't tell you how to live your life or how to create positive interactions, but as long as you don't try and tell me how, I believe we're one step closer. |
| 9 Comments |
| America's values |
| 11.03.04 (3:47 pm) [edit] |
|
I am a generally optimistic and hopeful person, willing to give the benefit of the doubt and look for the best of possibilities; but all that was crushed last night. Bush's victory shows that there is a very skewed view of what is important and what is valued in America. And this is something that I am afraid cannot be easily changed. There will likely be much analysis in the days to come of what exactly caused the defeat of John Kerry. Things to be examined might include the impact of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads, the attack on John Kerry as being a flip-flopper and weak on security, the approval rating of Bush's handling of the War on Terror, the lack of a cohesive message from the Democratic Party, or the bin Laden tape released that likely rallied Bush supporters. And while each of those things merits evaluation, I think the single determining factor in this election was who atually voted. As [url=http://therealspartacus0 07.tb...]therealspartacus007[/url ] pointed out,the most important issue, according to exit polls, seemed to many to be [b]moral values[/b]. Moral values. Not the war in Iraq, not the economy, not the war on terror (though that ranked second in terms of importance), not domestic issues, but moral values shaped this election. I would speculate that this is not because most Americans actually perceive moral values to be the most important issue our nation faces, but because the bloc of voters who do see moral values as dominant were the most mobilized. Only about 10% of the electorate was comprised of first-time voters, the same as four years ago. The majority of the youth that did vote was for Kerry. But I believe that a majority of the other 90% of voters was made up of those who were clearly mobilized based on their faith. So what does this mean? Is it a bad thing that moral values were ranked the number one issue in this election? I believe that this signifies the direction of America's future as well as the importance of mobilizing voters. I do think that selecting our president based on the issue of moral values is a bad thing. But don't get me wrong- I am all for moral behavior and a strong supporter of ethics. However, I sense that the vast majority of voters has a skewed perception of most moral issues. And that is basically that they view issues such as gay marriage and abortion solely as moral issues, thus neglecting the importance of individual rights. The fact that the majority of those who voted in this year's election did so based on who they beleived expressed the strongest moral values. But I don't believe that "moral values" actually relates to [i]all[/i] moral values, but primarily those that comply with Christian beliefs, such as protecting traditional marriage and fighting for life (in other words, banning same-sex couples from marrying and denying women the right to choose). I don't know that it is possible to convince those who view these issues based on their faith and what they personally perceive to be moral that there are other aspects to the issues, and that forcing the entire nation to comply to [b]their[/b] morality isn't exactly supporting freedom. Abortion is not simply a battle between those who believe it to be immoral and those who support murdering babies. The real debate should lie in constitutionality, but it doesn't. The President, as well as many other politicians, has used abortion and gay marriage as political tools. President Bush appealed to the faith of his supporters and undecideds to make gay marriage a moral issue. All eleven states that voted on proposed amendments to their state's constitution banning gay marriage passed them. I would wager that most voters who supported these bans did so based on what they see as a moral issue. I'll agree that there is a moral aspect to the issue of gay marriage- but that is not the only aspect, nor is it the most important when it comes to legislation. It would seem that many Americans hope to negate the separation of church and state and assert their Christian values. Giving the government the power to determine our own morals is incredibly dangerous. I have a feeling this will be grudgingly understood in the years to come. The Republican Party now has control over the Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch, and soon Bush will be given the power to appoint Supreme Court Justice(s). President Bush will be leading based on a moral agenda. This agenda is in contrast to the true values of America, I believe, and those are the values of freedom, liberty, justice, individual rights, and equality. In essence, I think things are going to get a whole lot worse before they get any better. If they get better. |
| 13 Comments |
| Ballot Access - election reform |
| 10.30.04 (1:48 pm) [edit] |
|
This is in response to a comment by [url=http://juniperflux.tblog.com]juniperflux[/url] regarding Ralph Nader. Now, let me be clear- I in no way support Ralph Nader. I do, however, support the intentions of a democratic election system. Though there are certain limitations on who may run for President (must be 35, born in America), one endearing quality about our nation is that anyone capable of gaining the support and funding necessary can compete in a presidential election. Or, at least, that is how it is supposed to be. In reality, as this year's election race has shown, the Democratic and Republican Parties have a great deal of power, and this power is often wielded in attempts to deny candidates of other parties or independent candidates from contention. This is unfair. In Ralph Nader's case, his attempts to gain ballot access have resulted in lawsuits, challenges, and some small victories. However, the Supreme Court ruled against Nader and declared that he would not be granted ballot access in Pennsylvania. Nader will, however, be appearing on the ballot in 35 states, including D.C. How is it fair to the American public for a candidate for president to appear on the ballot in one state, but not another? Doesn't this place the citizens of Pennsylvania at an unfair disadvantage compared to New Yorkers because they are denied the option of voting for Ralph Nader? I can understand that some procedures need to be in place to provide measures for determining which candidates may appear on the ballot- otherwise we could have 1,000 different candidates for President. But it seems odd that a national race can be different in each state. I would think that it would make better sense to have some federal guidelines for determining ballot access, rather than making it a state-by-state issue. Generally, I prefer less federal influence in government, but when it comes to a federal campaign, I think it better serves all Americans to have national standards. It is also extremely petty that the Democrats have fought against Nader's attmepts to gain access to ballots. I can understand the fear that some who lean Democratic may vote for Nader instead, but that is only fair. If I want to vote for Nader, I should not be denied that opportunity simply because he may cause greater competition. We have all been somewhat convinced that we only have two options each election cycle and that there are only two valid political parties. They only have this power over us because we refuse to challenge it and too often simply go along with it. In the aftermath of the 2000 Election (debacle), it was clear that our system was flawed. Have there been any changes made to correct these flaws? Aside from the early voting initiative in Florida, which serves to give election officials in the state the time to correct their incompetence, nothing has been changed, and few challenges have been made to prompt election reform. But that is only to be expected- someone had to win the election, and do you think that person or his party is really going to place fixing the system that led to his election as a top priority? No- the only way things will change is if the citizens make it abundantly clear that change is necessary. This requires conviction and defiance. The Democratic and Republican Parties are becoming more and more like giant corporations with the dangerous power to control and determine our elections. The Electoral College consists of a slate of electors in each state selected by the Republican and Democratic Parties. As you know, it is the Electoral College that ultimately decides the winner. This means that, under the current system, there is a bias in the Electoral College. This is absolutely unfair and counter to democracy. All of us- Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, independents, etc.- should stand up and defend the interests of the voters. We need to work for a reform in our electoral system, and send a message that we will not tolerate corporate dominance corrupting our democratic elections. Denying Ralph Nader ballot access does nothing other than deny the rights of each citizen to choose from all valid options- if Nader is considered a valid option in New York, why not in Pennsylvania? Giving control over our elections to a slate of electors hand-picked by the Democratic Party or by the Republican Party or Libertarian Party (if that was the case) is unfair and a blemish on our so-called democratic society. So start sending a message on November 2nd by voting for [url=http://badnarik.org]Michael Badnarik[/url], [url=http://votenader.org]Ralph Nader[/url], or [url=http://votecobb.org]David Cobb[/url]. |
| 6 Comments |
| Election 2004: Choices? |
| 10.23.04 (10:08 pm) [edit] |
|
Arguably the most important aspect of a democratic society is the assurance that its citizens are provided with [b]choices[/b] regarding how their government is run. It is assumed that we are given these choices in the form of a number of candidates competing for each particular office in a given election year. This year, we are presented with choices for President- the highest office in our nation. Or are we? I rarely cut-and-paste articles, but this is a well-written presentation of the incompetency of both men with the greatest potentiality of becoming our next President. I will post a few choice segments, and if you would like to read the rest for yourself, the link is at the bottom. [line] "President Bush has grown government more than any administration in four decades, even when you subtract for defense and homeland security spending. He and the Republican Congress have given us massive, pork-laden energy, farm subsidy, highway, and corporate tax bills. Despite his reputed stern resolve, President Bush shown no political backbone on domestic issues, save for some modest tax cuts. He gave ground on free trade, capitulated on campaign finance reform, expanded the regulatory state and passed the largest new federal entitlement since the Great Society." "The claim that President Bush made us safer in the War on Terror is also misguided. He diverted precious military intelligence, manpower, and resources away from apprehending the people who perpetrated Sept. 11 (Al Qaeda) and those who harbored them (the Taliban) to wage war with Iraq, a country that posed little if any immediate threat to our national security. Even conceding that the war made sense given the intelligence available at the time (it didn't), it's now clear that the Bush administration was woefully unprepared for post-war security. We're now enveloped in an expensive, dangerous, stagnant occupation. Our presence in Iraq is breeding new anti-American terrorists, in Iraq and across the Muslim world. The Brookings Institution estimates that the overwhelming majority of insurgent attacks in Iraq against U.S. forces are coming from newly minted, native Iraqi terrorists, not from existing Islamic extremists from other countries. Terrorist attacks across the globe have gone up, not down, since September 11." "John Kerry wouldn't be any better. Kerry's plan for Iraq — like his plans for most domestic issues — is to throw more money and resources at the problem. It's naïve to think Kerry would pull us out of Iraq. What better way to show the good government can do than to build an entire society from scratch?" "Upon getting his party's nomination, Sen. Kerry looked at an administration that grew government in nearly all areas at a rate unseen in nearly a half-century and decided to run to the left of it. He insists that the looming Social Security and Medicare crises are exaggerated, meaning that eight years of a Kerry administration would almost certainly mean younger workers can look forward to a massive hike in payroll taxes. Kerry also wants to further socialize health care. He's a little better on medicinal marijuana, but is otherwise every bit the drug warrior President Bush is." "So what to do? I'm not sure. If I were to make an endorsement, I'd recommend leaving the top line of your ballot blank. What I'd like to issue is a wake-up call. It's been awe-inspiring to watch otherwise smart people sing the praises of a guy they really don't like that much for no other reason than that they dislike the other guy more. But while Americans passionately, sometimes angrily, divide themselves into "red" and "blue" — bitterly aligning themselves behind two candidates who really aren't all that different from each other — the two major parties will continue to use campaign finance reform, the presidential debates, regulation of the airwaves, national conventions, and taxpayer funding to secure their stranglehold duopoly on American politics. Which means that instead of an exercise in freedom, Election Day is fast becoming an exercise in choosing which of two largely identical groups of politicians gets to control our lives for the next four years.' [i]Radley Balko maintains a Weblog at: http://www.TheAgitator.com.[/i] Taken from: http://www.foxnews.com/story/...,2933,136114,00.html [line] While I agree with many of the assertions in this article, I would like to offer an alternate set of advice. It is rather clear that America's political process has become more and more a corporate-run enterprise, with the Democratic and Republican Parties at the helm. This is evident in the media coverage both candidates from these parties ultimately receive. There are choices in this election, and yes, the choice between George W. Bush and John Kerry is among them. However, that is not where it ends. Third party candidates need now more than ever the support of voters in order to take back America's democratic heritage. Sure, it is not entirely likley that a candidate such as the [url=http://lp.org]Libertarian Party's[/url] [url=http://badnarik.org]Michael Badnarik[/url] will win the presidency this year, but that does not make a vote cast for him wasted. I believe the stakes of this year's election are high. But not because we are at war, not because we have a weak economy and have suffered a net loss of jobs over the past four years, but because the future of America is at stake. There will be little difference between a second Bush Administration and a John Kerry presidency, in my opinion. What is most important is to consider the implications continually casting a vote for the "lesser of two evils" will have on our country. Voting for someone because you despise his opponent is not productive in changing the system. I will be voting for Michael Badnarik on November 2nd because I am hopeful that we can truly and effectively alter the current cycle of American politics. The only wasted vote this year is the vote for a candidate you don't truly support. |
| 6 Comments |
| And the winner is... |
| 10.23.04 (9:28 pm) [edit] |
|
I would like to thank all of the tbloggers who participated in my [url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]challenge[/url] in recent days. It served as great reassurance that there are still people willing to write about the real issues, rather than exchange meaningless attacks. It is very possible that I missed some entries, so please leave a comment if you posted yours and it isn't listed here. The following bloggers rose to the challenge and are to be credited with having blogs actually worthy of reading: :wink: [url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]therealspartacus007[/url ] [url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]RedTigress[/url] [url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]mblog[/url] [url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]librariananguish[/url] Also, "Donald Trump," a non-blogger, submitted his responses to my questions in the form of a comment, which can be found [url=http://www.tblog.com/comments...]here[/url]. I wanted to (arbitrarily) judge these entries and award the winner with, well, absolutely nothing, but I couldn't decide whose entry was most deserving- all of you did an excellent job. So, I suggest that all readers judge for themselves by reading each of the above entries. I am also recommending that we continue on this course and post relevant blogs covering the real issues, not the hateful rhetoric. |
| 5 Comments |
| Tblog Politics Challenge answered |
| 10.22.04 (2:43 am) [edit] |
|
Well, I extended a challenge to all fellow poli-bloggers (as I believe [url=http://redtigress.tblog.com]RedTigress[/url] calls it) to write a rational blog on any of the following questions, without resorting to hate tactics such as name-calling or unnecessary attacks against others. Many have expressed interest, and I look forward to reading all the responses (let me know when you've posted yours so I don't miss it). So I figured it would only be fair for me to write my own. Here goes. [i]What do you think is the single most important issue in this year's presidential race, and who do you think will win?[/i] This isn't a particularly easy or simple question, and any response will be steeped in speculation. My view is that national security is likely the one issue that will determine the election for most voters. The "war on terror" has been exalted to the status of being the prime focus of our national security. This is a bit misleading. But, I'd rather not delve into my personal beliefs on the matter in this response, so I will simply explain why I think most voters will cast their ballot according to their views on national security and the "war on terror." Obviously, it is in great part because of the attacks of September 11. Having been attacked, we naturally hope to defend our nation against future attacks, as well as to retaliate. National security will be on the minds of every voter, while other, more personal issues will be secondary. President Bush has been steadily losing support in regard to the war in Iraq, but still maintains a strong lead over John Kerry on the issue of national security. This is mainly because, whether we like his policies or not, we are more aware of what President Bush will do, and the possible actions of John Kerry as president are less clear. In other words, many people support Bush not because they agree with his policies, but because they know what they are and are uncertain of Kerry's. It is obviously going to be a close (and dreadedly contested) election, but in the end, I believe Bush will unfortunately be re-elected. Kerry does have a decent shot, but I think that more voters will be concerned with our national security and applaud Bush's efforts to ensure our safety, despite the less popular actions of the President. [i]Does John Kerry have a consistent position on the war in Iraq, and, if elected, would he be an effective leader in this war?[/i] Consistency and John Kerry don't seem to go together very well, at least according to the Republicans. But, I do believe John Kerry's position on the Iraq war has been basically consistent and fairly reasonable, even though I do not really agree with him. He initially voted to give President Bush the authority to take the nation to war. This does not necessarily mean that he supported the war, only that he thought the President should be given that authority (I disagree). He also stated that he believed Saddam Hussein to be a threat to our security. This belief is not exclusive to the position that war with Iraq was necessary or the right course of action. In essence, my belief of John Kerry's position on the war in Iraq is that he believed then and now that Saddam was a threat, the President should be given the authority to go to war, but that the war was mishandled. As far as his effectiveness as the leader in this war in Iraq, as well as the fight against terrorists, I see no reason to believe John Kerry would be any weaker or less effective than George W. Bush. I think perhaps he would be more rational about taking the nation into war, in fact. [i]Has George W. Bush misled the country regarding Iraq, and is his doctrine of preemption in our nation's best interest?[/i] Well, anyone who's ever read my blog before likely knows that I disagreed with the war in Iraq from its onset. Whether President Bush knowingly [i]lied[/i] to the public by stating that there were stockpiles of WMD and that Saddam Hussein had the intent to attack us, I simply do not know, and I would not make that assertion. So, no, I don't think that it is fair to claim that Bush purposefully misled the nation when he spoke of his belief regarding Iraq. However, I do believe that the war itself was misleading. Even had there been WMD, it was not right to invade Iraq in the manner this President chose to. It is my opinion that the war in Iraq was unnecessary, unjustified, poorly planned, and wrongly carried out by Bush and his administration. I believe that preemption is generally a horrible policy. While at times it is necessary to be the first to take action, war should always be the last possible option, and invading another country should only be done when truly justified. It only places our own security at risk by initiating force against other nations. So there's my brief take on these questions. If you would like to provide your own take, please feel free to answer them on your own blog, or argue in the comments (just please refrain from crude and immature remarks). :wink: |
| 4 Comments |
| tblog politics: a lesson in (im)maturity |
| 10.20.04 (11:07 pm) [edit] |
|
As my loyal readers (if there are any) are well aware, I have been fairly absent from tblog for quite some time. Though I haven't been writing, I do occasionally check in on some of my favorite blogs (as well as some I have a tendency to despise). I have noticed a disgraceful trend amongst the tblog political posters, particularly in recent days. For quite some time, there has been nothing but ugly rhetoric exchanged between those on the right, those on the left, and those of us who dare disagree with either side. At times, this is okay. Arguing can be productive in political discussions. It can also be a complete distraction from the issues at hand. And this is what tblog politics has sadly become- a disgraceful distraction. Blogs created for the sole purpose of hateful bashing of another blogger are immature and ineffective in accomplishing anything other than irrelevant bickering. That's not to say that they aren't quite often entertaining or even beneficial for comic relief. To this end, I would mention one of my favorite blogs; that of the ever popular and talented [url=http://jimmytherighteous .tblo...]jimmytherighteous[/url]. The intent of his blog from its onset was to point out the errors of another blogger. And also to poke fun at him. At times, this blog has possibly crossed the line and been nothing other than a forum for insults. However, jimmytherighteous at the very least shows integrity by providing real arguments against the points others have made. This is not the case with many of the newly created hate-oriented blogs. The imitation blogs, such as CheckItQut, flipsidown, refucto, etc., are nothing but immature, unproductive assaults on others. It is ridiculous. At times, yes, they are funny. But I find it to be incredibly disgraceful for those who I know have the capability to discuss [b]important[/b] issues rationally and effectively to resort to such tactics. There is little point to a political forum in which posting is nothing other than name-calling and a seeming contest to see who can come up with the best bash against another blogger. Do you guys really have nothing better to do with yourselves than fight so immaturely with people you don't even know? If so, keep it up- I'm sure no one will read your inane arguments other than yourselves. However, if you are truly interested in promoting discussion of relevant and important topics, I urge all of you to redeem yourselves by overcoming these juvenile tactics and returning to respectful dialog and informative posts. As an exercise (and an attempt to restore some integrity to tblog politics), I would like to extend an invitation to all political bloggers to write just one blog that relies on facts, logic, and intelligence, rather than insults, immature language, and irrelevant nonsense to provide insight into your position on one of the following topics: What do you think is the single most important issue in this year's presidential race, and who do you think will win? Does John Kerry have a consistent position on the war in Iraq, and, if elected, would he be an effective leader in this war? Has George W. Bush misled the country regarding Iraq, and is his doctrine of preemption in our nation's best interest? No useless rhetoric, no name-calling, no personal attacks, just the facts, your opinion and insight. I hope that isn't too difficult. Once you've written your blog, let me know in the comments section here, and the best blog I read will have 1000 tbucks donated in their name to the charity of their choice. |
| 38 Comments |
| Are you voting Pepsi, Coke, or Mountain Dew in November? |
| 09.16.04 (9:18 pm) [edit] |
|
I just returned from Virginia Tech, where Libertarian presidential candidate [url=http://www.badnarik.org]Michael Badnarik[/url] gave a wonderful speech, followed by questions from the audience. Of course I am a bit biased in this overview, seeing as I was already planning on voting for Badnarik, but I would like to highlight some of my favorite parts of the event. He gave a fairly short and straightforward speech in which he discussed each of the major issues concerning America in this election, and briefly explained his views on them. Unlike John Kerry or George Bush, Badnarik gave concise explanations of his position. While Kerry is constantly criticized for not having a clear stance on most issues, and Bush is known for making misleading statements to provide his position, there was no mistaking Michael Badnarik's stances on the issues. He discussed the unconstitutional nature of the Patriot Act, the importance of the 2nd Amendment, the potential reinstatement of the draft, social security, the problems with a foreign policy based on offense instead of defense, as well as other issues of importance. After the speech, students in the audience handed in the index cards they were given, with questions for Badnarik. He fielded all the questions excellently and showed no vulnerability in answering questions on any topic. My personal favorite question was, "The differences between George Bush and John Kerry are much like the differences between Coke and Pepsi. How are you like Mountain Dew, and why shouldn't I vote for Coke?" Badnarik listed his qualifications, his background, and his intentions as President. He also related a story (maybe not in answering this particular question, but at some point). He was in an elevator with 6 other people recently, wearing jeans and a tshirt that said "Badnarik for President" on it. One of the people in the elevator looked at his shirt and said, "Badnarik? I've never even heard of him." So, he turned to the guy, reached his hand out, and said, "Hi, I'm Michael Badnarik. I'm running for President." Everyone in the elevator said that they were voting for him. Badnarik, in relating this story, said that the only criteria he had to meet for those people in that elevator were that he wasn't George Bush and he wasn't John Kerry. Though the entirety of the speech was amusing, well said, and very lucid, the final question received the best and most powerful answer. The question was simple: "Are you an anarchist?" To answer, Badnarik created an analogy. He said that if you live in a log cabin, fire is essential to your survival and very important. And there is a place for fire, named the fireplace. The founding fathers knew that government was something we needed, something that would benefit us and enhance our survival. The place for government was in the Constitution. So long as your fire remains in the fireplace, it is a good thing. But as soon as it goes out of the fireplace, it becomes a bad thing, and you immediately and instinctually stomp it out. While the government acts within the limitations of the Constitution, it is a good thing. But when the government goes beyond the limitations of the Constitution, it becomes a bad thing, and, Badnarik stated, he hopes that we would immediately and instinctually stomp it out. If you would like to know more about Michael Badnarik or the Libertarian Party, feel free to ask, or visit http://badnarik.org or http://lp.org. |
| 13 Comments |
| The politics of September 11 |
| 09.10.04 (8:23 pm) [edit] |
|
Tomorrow marks the third anniversary of the terrorist attacks that changed our modern world. Much time will likely be spent reflecting on that day in 2001, highlighting personal and emotional stories. And this is somewhat important. Remembering those who lost their lives in the attacks, and for what reason, serves as a chilling reminder of the fragility of world politics. As was done in the immediate aftermath of the attacks, a strong call for a mentality of war will be made. For me, remembering September 11, 2001 evokes the exact same feelings now as I had then. My first semester at college, I had class at 8:30 every Tuesday morning. Thankfully, this excruciatingly boring class often let out well before 9:30, and that particular morning we were free to go a little before 9. I went back to my room and climbed into bed. The next thing I knew, my roommate was on the phone sounding upset, frantic, and generally as though something major had happened. When I rolled over and looked at her, she just told me to go downstairs- it was on tv. Clueless, I went downstairs and sat down, trying to grasp what I was seeing on the television. The news reporters were talking about a plane flying into the World Trade Center. At that time, they were even still discussing the possibility of it merely being an accident. I was stunned. After a few minutes of watching the footage of a smoky and fiery World Trade Center, there was suddenly another plane in the shot. I watched, feeling helpless, this plane as it turned and flew into the second tower. No one knew quite what to do or how to react. Another of my roommates had been telling us about how she had worked right by the trade centers over the summer, and had an uncle who worked in one of the towers that was hit. The whole morning, she tried calling him, but could not get through. Later, we heard that another plane had hit part of the Pentagon and a fourth plane had crashed in Pennsylvania- only a few hours from the school I was attending. Classes were cancelled for the day, and everything on campus was solemn. The next day, some students organized a candle-light vigil. At first, the focus was on unity and mourning a national loss. Quickly, it shifted to anger and revenge. Naturally, anyone who saw the planes crash into the World Trade Centers that morning felt angered. Revenge was called for by our President. Once it became clear that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the attacks, there were many calls for bombing Afghanistan. I was one of the few against this action. My feeling was that, though retaliation may very well be warranted and necessary, indescriminately attacking an enemy within a nation would not only be ineffective, but would do little other than guarantee more violence. Today, three years later, my feeling has not changed. And neither has that of the President. Well, except that now he favors attacking sovereign nations that had nothing to do with the attacks of 9/11, rather than going after bin Laden. But, at any rate, the President's prime motivation is to fight terrorism with great force. He calls for support in this 'war on terrorism' based on the emotional responses to 9/11. And all too often, he gets this support. So many are convinced that it is necessary to support the President no matter what, or they are supporting terrorism. Bush and his supporters, followers, and campaigners promote the message of only one possibility on this issue- you're either with Bush or you don't care about America. Unfortunately, dissent is viewed as a weakness. The assertion that, since terrorists attacked the US, the US must attack terrorism, is false. Terrorism is extremely broad in scope, and attempting to wage war on all terrorism only breeds terrorist action. Going after bin Laden and al Qaeda would have been logical after 9/11, but not with brute force alone, and not by dropping bombs throughout Afghanistan. Strategically seeking out bin Laden and others known to be active members of al Qaeda would have been the best and most effective way to thwart terrorism and to avenge the 9/11 attacks. President Bush, however, declared war on terrorism. He used this as a political ploy. Maintaining that the terrorists brought war to us, the President coaxed the nation into going along with his war. But he neglected the realities of the situation. He has been able to use an emotional cue to gain support and to weed out criticism. Those of us critical of Bush's war(s) are made out to be un-American. Many emotional accounts of lost loved ones in the attacks of 9/11 evoke a sense of anger and resolve among Americans. Bush uses this to his advantage. Politically, September 11 is used as an irrefutable source of power for Bush- it is very difficult to challenge the President when such an emotional and nationally uniting subject is involved. When emotional issues that concern the entire nation are brought up, often is the case that emotion overrides rational thought. The unity brought about by this national tragedy serves to give Bush unquestioned leadership- something he has not demonstrated deserving. I am hopeful that while the nation mourns once more the tragedy of 9/11, rational thought will not be discarded, and the talking points from the Bush camp will not resonate among the people. |
| 5 Comments |
| The 'lesser of two evils' syndrome |
| 08.05.04 (10:09 pm) [edit] |
|
Chatting with my good friend, [url=http://redtigress.tblog.com]RedTigress[/url], I decided to take it upon myself to convince the nation to overcome the syndrome that has plagued our political natures for so long- the 'lesser of two evils' syndrome. Forgive me for not having any official statistics, but I have no doubt that the majority of Americans have apathetically submitted to the view of politics, particularly when it comes to presidential politics, as necessarily about selecting the lesser of two evils. In this year's election, most see it as choosing between President Bush or John Kerry, despite the fact that neither may be considered desirable. Those who favor Kerry tend to operate under the 'anyone but Bush' mentality, not caring how much actual support they have for John Kerry as president. As long as he is not George W. Bush, he'll do, seems to be the opinion. Conversely, many of those supporting Bush for re-election actually have very negative opinions of the current Administration, but feel that John Kerry's platform is unacceptable. Generally, there is the view that casting a vote for a third party candidate is wasting your vote. Depending on your viewpoint, this is true. It can also be true depending on your location. But in many ways, it is the most significant vote you can cast. Consider, for example, a state such as Idaho. Bush has a clear majority lead throughout the state. This means that, in all likelihood, all of Idaho's electoral votes will go to President Bush. Any vote cast in the state of Idaho for [b]any[/b] candidate other than Bush could be considered a wasted vote, in the sense that these votes would, in the end, not be counted toward electing the next president. However, this does not urge Democratic voters in Idaho to give in and vote for Bush. The reason for this is that these votes against Bush act as protest votes. They may not have any tangible effectiveness, but they are symbolic of disapproval of the state's chosen candidate. They also prevent the winning candidate from having as great a mandate. As I said, these votes include any candidate other than Bush; it is, in essence, equivocal to vote for John Kerry or Michael Badnarik or Ralph Nader or a tree. The difference lies in the significance for the future. Votes for the Democratic candidate in a state that will undoubtedly go to the Republican mean very little (just as votes for a Republican in a predominantly Democratic state are effectively meaningless). They demonstrate that the Republican does not have a complete mandate, but do little else. On the other hand, votes for third party candidates can create a new political future, one where perhaps the phrase 'lesser of two evils' need not be uttered. A vote for a third party candidate is symbolic. It is a protest vote, a demand for change. The fewer third party votes cast, the lesser the chance of this call for change being heard. However, the more votes a third party candidate gets, the more likely attention will be given to the party, and, in time, the party can be granted an equal footing with the major parties. The only way for the message of liberty, freedom, non-coercion, and individual rights can be made into reality is for parties such as the [url=http://lp.org]Libertarian Party[/url] to gain enough support so that they can effectively contend in national politics. Rise above the 'lesser of two evils' mentality and embrace the cause of liberty. Don't waste your vote, support change in America. |
| 16 Comments |
| The arrogance of George W. Bush |
| 08.05.04 (5:34 pm) [edit] |
|
The President of the United States of America, George W. Bush, made one of the most arrogant and frightening statements several days ago, yet there has been scant attention paid to it. When asked if, hypothetically, he had known that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before the war started, would he have invaded still, Bush replied that he would have. His reasoning being that Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who had the potential to build his arsenal of weaponry. Perhaps this response by our president doesn't surprise you- I can't say that I was shocked by him saying this; it is the implication of this statement that is shocking. The Bush Doctrine of preemption now extends not only to regimes that pose immediate threats to our nation's security, but to, well, anyone. There are countless world leaders and various nations that are vehemently against the United States, many of these posing somewhat of a threat. There are many nations that have the capacity for building their arsenal and creating weapons of mass destruction. But it is not in our nation's best interest to embrace this ideology of warfare. When we allow war to be considered justified by nothing more than the potentiality of a state to build its arsenal and possibly attack us, we operate under an 'anything goes' foreign policy. It is a dangerous precedent that President Bush has set. Preemption is one thing, but basing a war on nothing more than circumstantial evidence is dangerous policy. Naturally, Bush would not declare that his decision to invade Iraq was a mistake. He is only trying to compensate for the faulty intelligence the war was supposedly based on. But by making this statement, he is providing a self-indictment for what liberals have been claiming all along- that Bush had intentions of a war in Iraq all along. There is a difference between defending the actions of the Administration regarding Iraq by saying that, though there turned out to be no stockpiles of WMD in Iraq as they had thought there would be, the war was justified because they had reason to think there were WMD and Hussein was a dangerous man who could have harmed the US in the future, and saying that even knowing that there were no WMD, we still would have attacked. I disagree with both statements (in fact, I don't even believe the war would have been justified had there been WMD), but the first is only illogical, the second coldly arrogant. Imagine the President of the United States announcing that we are entering into a war with another nation... and giving no justification. The only reason given being that the leader of the nation had the capacity to attain dangerous weapons and be a threat. While security is important, indescriminately starting wars is not the way to ensure security. It will only promote hostile attitudes against the US. But now we have the President stating plainly that he would have invaded Iraq even had he known beforehand that there were no WMD. The main justification for the war, and the single claim that gave national support for the war was the claim that there were stockpiles of WMD in Iraq. There is no way the war would have been approved had there not even been that claim. But Bush sees no problem with this- his newfound 'diplomacy' of combat overrides the need for support, and more important, the need for justification. Why this admission by President Bush has not been a bigger deal, I do not know. Personally, I was appalled and somewhat terrified when I heard it. My only hope is that Congress will be more hesitant to allow us to enter into war in the future, and that Bush will never have the power to make such a decision again. |
| 12 Comments |
| What happened to my dreams? |
| 07.31.04 (9:37 pm) [edit] |
| As you may have noticed, Lucid Dreams has been somewhat desolate as of late. I could give you some sorry excuses and apologize for not keeping you in fresh writings, but hey, it's my blog, what's it matter to you? Seriously though, I have no inspiration for new subjects these days and little interest in the same repetitive debates. However, I do encourage you to peruse the archives here and also bring up any matters you wish to discuss. I'm not going anywhere, but I am also not likely to post on a frequent basis. |
| 16 Comments |
| Reducto's ill-fated "logic" |
| 07.16.04 (8:38 pm) [edit] |
|
In regard to a statement made in a [url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]post by reducto[/url], I made this comment (well, part of a comment): [i]Finally, I'm a little confused: [/i][quote from reducto’s post][i]"they are another religion, another belief system organized around a God bigger than themselves-- the self." So, the self is bigger than themselves?[/i] This elicited this lovely response from dear reducto: [i]I know you're confused, you're always confused. It's about time to admit you're just stupid. The "Self" is an idea bigger than a person. It is embraced by the ideology of Human Secularism. It places "MAN" above all else. It makes man a God. Since man is a God, there is no right and wrong, and moral equality emerges. Still confused? I'm not surprised.[/i] So, I am hereby admitting that I am, in fact, just stupid. Hey, reducto said it- it must be true. In my stupidity, I thought that the self would be equal to those he was referencing, atheists. Actually, reducto's brilliant statement was an implication that "Human Secularists" (I'm not quite sure what that is- I would simply assume he means Secular Humanists, but you know what happens when you assume things) make themselves their own God, meaning that somehow they are under the influence of something bigger than themselves. This influence, according to reducto, is the "Self." Now, here is where my stupidity manifests itself. I can't figure out how the "Self" is bigger than the person. My dictionary, though undoubtedly inaccurate in comparison to the definitions given by reducto, states the definition of self to be as follows: "1. The essential being of 1 person as distinct from any other. 2. A particular aspect of a person. 3. Personal welfare, interest, or advantage : selfishness." Okay, so the essential being of 1 person as distinct from any other is the supposed 'God' to atheists. And this idea somehow is twisted by us atheists (yes, all of us; and we are all Human Secularists, though I still am unsure of what that is) into meaning that man is above all else. This makes us view ourselves as our own God. So this must mean that atheism is actually a polytheistic religion with as many gods as there are atheists. But that's neither here nor there. Reducto's claim, then, is that atheism makes the self bigger than the individual, and into a God. My understanding of atheism has always been simply the belief that there is no God. And I'll admit that, yes, I am still confused, reducto. The reality, however, is that reducto is simply misguided. While the argument could be made by theists that even atheists must have some guiding force that is above them, nearly equivocal to a god, it is erroneous to assert that all atheists maintain the view that man is greater than all else. This all also depends on your definition of God. Most definitions of God include an omnipotent, perfect, and omniscient being who originated the universe, and a being with supernatural attributes that is worshipped by a group of people. The lesser definition of a god (lowercase) is "Someone or something considered to be extremely valuable or important." So, sure, a person could consider himself to be extremely valuable or important. In fact, I hope that most people do. This does not, however, mean that man is above all else. And it certainly does not follow that there is no right and wrong. Morality is determined by the individual, whether that individual bases their moral guidelines on religious dogma or personal views; morality is not exclusive to a belief in God. Basing morality on the doctrines of a church results in an often false view of what is right and wrong- the individual does not determine for himself what is truly moral. However, if you contemplate morality and decide on your own what is moral, you actually have reason to act accordingly, other than the reason of fear. Right and wrong does not dissipate when there is no God, it is simply up to the individual to determine what is right and wrong, to act responsibly, and to be held accountable for his actions. Maybe reducto is right and I am just stupid. Or maybe he just has no clue as to what he is talking about. |
| 23 Comments |
| A synopsis of the Electoral College and possible reforms |
| 07.14.04 (10:21 pm) [edit] |
|
By popular demand (or by the request of mblog), here are some excerpts from a term paper on the Electoral College. Because this paper was very low quality, lengthy, and not very entertaining, I will not post it in its entirety. I'm not that cruel. :wink: But here is the basic gist for those interested: [line] …One criticism of the Electoral College is that voters in rural states are over-represented. For example, in 1998, the seven least populous jurisdictions had 21 electoral votes. Florida, whose population was three times the combined population of the seven jurisdictions, also had 21 electoral votes. Another example of how the Electoral College misrepresents voters based on population is California. "California represents only 11% of the U.S. population, but its 54 Electoral College votes represent 20% of the needed 270 votes." (ww.reformitnow.com) The current system also causes voter apathy. In states where one political party is favored by a clear majority, voters who wish to vote for the candidate representing the minority party, in effect, waste their votes because the majority of the popular vote in the state will most likely go to the candidate of the majority party, and, as a result, the state's electoral votes will go to that candidate. Another criticism of the Electoral College is that under the Constitution, electors are allowed to use their discretion, meaning that an elector could conceivably cast his vote based not on the people's will, but on his own preference. However, electors usually pledge to support a party's candidate. and there are only about seven cases where an elector did not vote for the people's choice. (Sung) Also, though the electors do represent the people's will, they are not chosen by the people, they are chosen by the political parties in each state (with the exceptions of Maine and Nebraska). The political parties each select a slate of electors (a group of delegates equal in number to the number of electoral votes allotted to the state) and, on the day of the general election, the voters indirectly select the slate of electors. The slate of electors for the political party whose candidate is given the majority of the popular vote in the state determines the slate of electors that are then selected as members of the Electoral College. This is not entirely representative of the people's will. The main complaint against the Electoral College is that in every state (except for Maine and Nebraska, which use a different system for nominating electors), the electoral votes are awarded on a "winner-take-all" basis. The candidate who wins a majority of the popular votes in the state wins all of the state's electoral votes. This is the reason that it is possible for a candidate to win the popular vote but not win the Presidency. This is a blatant misrepresentation of the people that can be blamed on the current setup of the Electoral College. ... The current system also makes it impossible for a third party candidate to get elected. The political parties generally select the members of the Electoral College, and there are no third party Electoral College delegates. Since the electors generally pledge to vote according to one of the major parties, third party candidates rarely receive any of the Electoral College votes. ... Under this system, this will always occur; no third party candidate can win the Presidency. It is mainly in this respect that the Electoral College is viewed as an archaic system. When the founding fathers implemented the Electoral College, there was no anticipation fo the profound influence of political parties and the rise of the two-party system we have today. The knowledge that third party candidates are incapable of winning the Presidency also causes voters to feel as though their votes do not matter, and if they vote for a candidate that is not affiliated with the two major candidates, they are throwing their vote away. Voter apathy is a symptom that the system is not working and undermines the democratic foundations of our country. ... The best possible solution to the faults found with the Electoral College system would be a simple reform to eliminate the "winner-take-all" outcome in each state. This has already been done in Maine and Nebraska under the Mundt-Cordier Plan. Using this plan, the statewide election result decides two of the electoral votes (the two generally allotted to the senators) and the rest of the electoral votes are determined by the result in each congressional district. Also, with the Mundt-Cordier Plan, it would be possible to reform the Electoral College without having to amend the Constitution. "A reform based on the Mundt-Cordier Plan would enhance the benefits of the Electoral College." (Ross) As long as gerrymandering laws were stricter, the Mundt-Cordier Plan, in conjunction with the Electoral College system already established, would allow for the further equalization of voter strength and also limit disputes in elections. ... Another possible option of Electoral College reform and the option that is most often discussed when dealing with the issue of Electoral College reform is pure popular vote. The main drawback to this is that it does nothing to eliminate the problems associated with the two-party system. Yet another possibility would be to allot a certain number of bonus points to the winner of the popular vote in addition to the current system. Depending on the designated number to be given, this could be a good solution, or it could be just like a direct popular election. The proposed number of bonus points was 102 (two votes for each state and two for Washington D.C.), which would more than likely seal the Presidency for the popular vote winner, unless there were extremely bizarre circumstances surrounding the election, which is highly unlikely. However, if the number of bonus votes is less than 102, it might be an advantageous addendum to the preexisting Electoral College in that it would provide for a more exact representation of the people's will by awarding points based on the popular vote. One solution to the problems involving the Electoral College could potentially have a very favorable outcome. This system would use a preferential voting method, where the voter ranks the candidates. If the candidate a voter ranks the highest is not in the majority, the voter's second choice gets their vote. The ballot would, however be very complicated and the counting process much more tedious. It would require implementing new voting machines, which would be very costly. Also, it would take away the population weight, meaning the smaller states would not want to pass it. A similar proposition would give votes on a point system based on the rankings received. For instance, if there are seven candidates, the candidate ranked number one by the voter would receive seven points and the candidate ranked last would receive only one point. The disadvantage of this would be that it would cause voters to rank not according to issue, but according to threat. A voter might rank one candidate number one based on his issues, but rank his opponent that supports the same issues very lowly in the hopes that their candidate would win. If enough of the voters did this, it would cause those candidates in the middle to receive higher ranks than they otherwise would and possibly win without a true mandate. A system of simply voting "yes" for as many candidates as you can tolerate and voting "no" for those you cannot tolerate is yet another option. This is similar to the preferential voting system, but not quite as complicated. The main drawback of this situation would be that there would be no differentiation between the candidates that are actually favored and those who are merely tolerable. But, it would allow for the voters to voice their opinion on which candidates they like without having to deal with primaries. [line]And another argument against the Electoral College lost in the middle: ...even if a candidate wins the popular vote by a narrow margin in large states, it compensates for losing the small states by a great majority. For example, if a candidate wins California's 54 electoral votes by only one popular vote, it accounts for losing by tens of thousands in Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. As a result of this, the "...arithmetic of the electoral college has focused presidential elections on a small number of populous states." (Goldstein 59) |
| 6 Comments |
| Problems with Bush and his administration |
| 07.10.04 (8:16 pm) [edit] |
|
Perhaps I am exaggerating, but it seems as though there is a new issue that comes to light daily negatively portraying President Bush's Administration. Some may be fabricated, distorted, or entirely untrue, but given so many negatives, it is hard for even the top spinsters to turn it all into a positive. A few examples: * The Pentagon acknowledged today that some of President Bush's [url=http://www.columbiatribune.co...]Guard records were destroyed.[/url] This muddles the issue of whether Bush served during 1972-73, while he was concurrently working on a political campaign in Alabama. Now, the positive spin could be that just because the documents that would prove the issue were destroyed, it does not definitely show that he did not serve. Negative/reality: Bush's military record is doubtful. * [url=http://www.buzzflash.com/cont...]Ken Lay[/url]/Enron scandal: It is well known that former Enron CEO, Ken Lay, and President Bush had/have a close, personal relationship. Lay, a supporter/contributor ("During his political career, the president accepted more than $600,000 from Enron, its employees and their relatives."http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5403912) to Bush, has been indicted on charges of fraud. The connection between the two Texans is at best symbolic of the influence of corporations in politics, and at worst, a firm indictment of the Bush Administration's lax policies against corporate fraud. Positive spin: Lay's indictment is proof of the Administration's intolerance of corporate abuses. Negative/reality: Bush has ties to big corporate donors, affecting political actions. * Halliburton and Dick Cheney: "While Vice President Cheney served as chairman and chief executive of Halliburton, the company acquired two subsidiaries, Dresser-Rand and Ingersoll Dresser Pump Co., which had signed contracts to sell oil production equipment to Iraq under the oil-for-food program for more than $73 million. The military investigated Halliburton and found that it overcharged for gas it imported into Iraq from Kuwait by as much as $61 million. In March 2003, the Pentagon announced it would withhold nearly $300 million in payments to Halliburton due to the company's overcharging on food contracts. "Halliburton spokeswoman Wendy Hall said the company disagreed with the decision and hoped to persuade the Pentagon to drop its plans."' (taken from http://www.democrats.org/spec...) Positive spin: Cheney's involvement with Halliburton does not necessarily include any wrongdoings. Just because a person is associated with something, does not mean that they are entirely responsible for it. Negative/reality: Vice President Cheney is the former chairman and chief executive of a company responsible for wrongdoings. And, lastly in this [i][b]brief[/i][/b] list of Bush Administration controversies, the misled war in Iraq. This is obviouisly debatable, as it has been the topic of many many debates since its onset, but the war in Iraq was based on flawed intelligence, was unnecessary, and was a mistake. The first of those statements, that it was based on flawed intelligence, cannot reasonably be argued against, particularly with the recent [url=http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPO...]report[/url] from the Senate Intelligence Committee stating precisely that. Prewar intelligence that claimed Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction was the basis for Bush's decision to invade Iraq. Had the intelligence been correct, the war still would have been unnecessary. Saddam did not pose an immediate threat and did not warrant an invasion. The war in Iraq was not urgent, and it was a mistake. Obviously, the removal of Saddam from power is a good thing, few would dispute that. However, the ramifications from leading America in the direction of an Imperialistic nation unconcerned with appealing to the conventions of world politics (ie, circumventing the UN) are damaging. The view of America as portrayed in the Middle East is increasingly negative. Though this has been the case for years, it is more so because of Iraq. Enough ramble, onto the analysis: Positive spin: Hussein, a brutal dictator, is now out of power and Iraq will be built into a democracy where freedom is valued. Negative/reality: Though the above is actually good, the ends do not justify the means. The war in Iraq was an unjustified war and, as such, should not be celebrated. |
| 11 Comments |
| Why you should vote for George W. Bush |
| 07.06.04 (10:04 pm) [edit] |
|
I'm serious. Okay, maybe not entirely. But, I do have at least one reason to consider voting for Bush, possibly two. The second possible reason being that John Kerry is a creep. But I'll get to that later. For now, I'd like to address the best reason I can think of to vote for George W. Bush. Consider this- in the upcoming election, you will undoubtedly be voting for the 'lesser of two evils' if you choose to vote for either Bush or Kerry, right? Some extremists of either party may ardently support the actual candidate, but for the most part, I think it would be fair to say that there is little true support for either candidate- rather, the support given is based on party allegiance or a need for change. If Kerry is elected President, there will be a greater likelihood that we will have to deal with unsavory choices for a longer time. If Kerry wins, he will be able to run for re-election in 2008, meaning we'd have one mediocre (at best) candidate for sure. There would only be the opportunity for a decent Republican candidate (and what are the chances of that happening? :wink:). However, if Bush wins re-election this year, there would be the potential for two decent candidates in 2008. So there you go, vote for Bush so we have a clean slate of politicians in 2008. As I said before, the other possible reason to consider voting for the incumbent would be that John Kerry is a creep. He really is. It is very difficult to discern in what ways he differs from Bush on the issues, actually. However, just because Kerry is not the most ideal alternative to Bush, that does not mean that you should vote for Bush. There are quite a few political parties not quite in the mainstream. Though this may mean that it is highly unlikely that these alternate candidates will win the presidency, the increasingly negative opinions of both the major parties imparts the need for new and different leadership. The only way for third parties to rise up to the level of contention is to demonstrate support and determination. This year, consider making a real difference and voting for someone other than Kerry or Bush. Vote for someone who truly represents your views. Vote for a third party, vote for change. |
| 26 Comments |
| Moral relativity? Or subjectivity? |
| 06.30.04 (9:21 pm) [edit] |
|
Another post courtesy of [url=http://redtigress.tblog.com]RedTigress'[/url] inspiration, I would simply like to present a different approach to the discussion of moral relativity addressed in her post, which you can read [url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]here[/url]. There is an error in thought regarding absolute or subjective morality. Morals cannot seemingly be absolute unless there is no variance among individual moralities. Accordingly, morals cannot seemingly be subjective (dependent on the individual/society/cultur e) and still have a meaning. Let me explain. If it is argued that morality is absolute, it implies that there is an ultimate Morality, a universal standard by which to distinguish right and wrong. This would only be possible if all systems of morality maintain the same standards and same values. This simply isn't realistic. Cultural values tend to dictate morality, and views of morality vary from culture to culture, as well as among individuals. It is obvious that we do not all maintain the same moral code. Under the flawed thought in place, this would 'prove' that no absolute moral code can exist. Similarly, if we approach morality from a subjectivist view, we contend that moral codes are only subject to the ideals of the individual. This implies (again, under the flawed thought often used) that, in the grand scheme of things, morality can not be judged from the outside- no one can condemn another's moral values. This would mean that morals are ultimately meaningless, or at least unimportant. If one person's views of morality are to be held in equal regard to your own, what does it matter which moral code you follow? Well, the problem with these misconceptions concerning morality is oversimplification. There seems to be an abhorrence of considering a gray area when it comes to morality. This is certainly a debatable subject, but my opinion is that there can be 'absolutes,' but that they may simultaneously only apply to the individual. I have very strong moral standards that I would view as absolutes, but others may not comply to my views. There may also be moral 'absolutes' that vary according to situation. Most would agree that killing is wrong, but that self-defense may require killing in some situations, and that is not immoral. If values are subjective, it does not follow that they are meaningless. In fact, that perhaps gives them more meaning. The individual must determine which values to accept, and discerning morality is what gives it meaning. If there was an absolute moral code by which we all naturally adhered without consideration, would that be meaningful? Now, I do agree with RedTigress in her conclusion that we must all as individuals examine, determine, and express our moral views. We may not all agree on what is to be considered right and wrong, but it is important to know what you personally value, and what you as an individual stand for. |
| 21 Comments |
| The politics of prostitution and polygamy |
| 06.29.04 (4:34 pm) [edit] |
|
That's right- I'm back! Sorry for going so long without posting; I hope none of you have been suffering through withdrawal or anything like that :wink:. I just returned from a lovely trip to Philadelphia/a really small hick town in northern PA, and I will hopefully be posting more frequently now. A discussion I had with [url=http://redtigress.tblog.com]RedTigress[/url] a few weeks ago inspired me to post my thoughts on prostitution and the law, but I had forgotten about it until reading [url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]this post[/url] on polygamy, by RedTigress. In other words, this is all the influence of Red. :wink: In an attempt to make this brief, I am only going to highlight my views on the issues and then I'll argue/discuss matters further in the comments, as usual. In most areas of the United States, prostitution is illegal. It is a crime to have sex for money, or to pay money for sex. Most Americans would likely reach a consensus view that prostitution is an unethical act, thus it should not be condoned. And this is the basis for the illegality of the act. However, prostitution is really only harmful in certain situations, as is any act (going down a slide can be dangerous and injurious to others). So long as the act is between consenting adults, how is it that it should be against the law? For those who wish to legislate morality, whose morality should be legislated? As I said, I believe that most of us would be morally opposed to prostitution. But should our morals always dictate our laws? Just because you or I may not like the idea of prostitution, does that mean that no one should be allowed to do it? If I, or the majority of citizens, consider eating snails (or escargot, for those French-inclined) to be disgusting and unwholesome (or at least salty and squishy), does it follow that eating snails should be illegal? No- it is a personal decision, just as who we have sex with and under what circumstances is a private matter. The government should not interfere with such decisions, nor should it legislate our actions in regard to private morality. Prostitution is often called a victimless crime. So long as it is between consenting adults, there is no harm. Ironically, by making prostitution illegal, it has made the 'profession' very dangerous. Similar to bootlegging in the times of prohibition, prostitution now must be conducted in a very risky manner, and the prostitute faces constant danger. Perhaps prostitution shouldn't be heralded as a wonderful practice, but I see no reason for it to be illegal. Similarly, polygamy is an illegal form of marriage, though there is no reason for this. I may not agree with polygamy on principle (or marriage, you know), but that doesn't mean that no one should be allowed to practice this. RedTigress' [url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]post[/url] on this subject effectively points out the unreasonable attributes of laws banning a person from participating in consensual polygamy. Morality can be separate from policy, and in a land with so-called separation of church and state, this is necessary. Being morally opposed to something does not have to result in opposing the right for others to act. We should view issues such as prostitution, polygamy, gay marriage, and abortion in this manner: there can be a moral view as well as a separate view regarding what is socially pertinent in terms of affording rights. Opposing an act on virtue of morality does not have to lead to denying the right of others to act in a way that does no harm to others. |
| 26 Comments |
| All apologies |
| 06.22.04 (7:32 pm) [edit] |
| I must apologize for: 1) not continuing my little series on God's non-existence, 2) not participating in the discussions inspired by these last few posts, and 3) simply being absent lately. I'm sure it's broken quite a few hearts :wink:. I have realized, however, that my approach to the discussion was misguided, and that in turn made me uninterested in even attempting to further the dialogue. Because of the way I broached the subject, it became a very broad discussion that was just too daunting to me. I much prefer structured debate over fruitless discussion of broad topics. In that vain, I recommend the new site for religious discussion, [url=http://ironblogrlgn.tblog.com...]Iron Blog Religion[/url], and also propose that anyone interested in discussing a specific aspect of religion/theology/philoso phy (or anything else, for that matter), feel free to suggest a topic to me for structured argument. Again, I apologize, and I will post something of some interest soon. |
| 6 Comments |
| Part Two: Refuting and reversing Pascal's Wager |
| 06.14.04 (8:02 pm) [edit] |
|
One of the most basic arguments for a belief in God is the famed wager by Pascal. Blaise Pascal argued that we are better off if we believe in God because we lose nothing if He does not exist, and gain if He does. Among the most common justifications for religious belief is this wager, which is based on assumption. If we assume that we cannot know for certain whether God does or does not exist, and assume that if God does exist and we believe in Him and live our life in accordance to our religious faith, we will receive eternal rewards. By the same token, if we do not believe in God and it turns out He does exist, we will be condemned to eternal damnation. Therefore, based on these assumptions, it would be foolish not to believe in God, as there is more at risk if we do not believe in Him. This is a rather silly assertion. True belief lies not in going along with a belief because you could possibly benefit from it, but by acknowledging that the belief is actually beneficial. If I am told that I will be rewarded for believing that a flying purple unicorn placed the stars in the sky, I should go ahead and believe it, according to Pascal’s logic. This is rather illogical, however. I propose that we gain nothing and lose quite a bit by believing in God and devoting our lives to this belief if it turns out that God does not exist. The reversal of Pascal’s wager seems more logical: If we assume that we cannot know for certain whether or not God exists, and we further assume that God doesn't exist, and if we do not maintain a belief in this nonexistent God we will enjoy a life of rewards based on taking individual responsibility and accountability for our own actions. Our life will be more meaningful if it is lived for our own reasons; we will not base our moral standards on some arbitrary guide, but will exercise true morality; and we will be complete as individuals on our own. However, if we choose to believe in this nonexistent God we will not gain any rewards in this life or in eternity, but will have lost any meaning in our own life and live a life of falsity. In essence, placing a wager on God's existence lacks empirical evidence for maintaining a belief- particularly one that defines your life. |
| 20 Comments |
| Proofs of God's non-existence- Part One: Discrepencies in the definition of God |
| 06.13.04 (7:37 pm) [edit] |
|
The simplest proof that there is no God that I can offer you is that, with so many different religions that hold different ideas of who or what God is, it is clear that there can be no God, as there is no ultimate definition of God. If God is a being that we can conceive, we must first have an operable definition of what this being is and what its nature is, prior to accepting its existence. Since there are numerous religions, it is apparent that there is no operable definition of God. If we are talking about the Christian God, He is a supreme being that spoke the universe into existence and created man in His image. To combat sin, He sent His son, Jesus Christ, to the earth to die, absolving the sins of all mankind. According to Christian dogma, so long as we accept Christ as the savior and repent for our sins, we will be saved and have eternal life in the kingdom of God, Heaven. In Judaism as well as Islam, the same idea of God as a supreme being who created the universe, is worshipped. However, there are different ideas of salvation and the messiah. The Jewish belief, which Christianity is based on, parallels Christianity in its assertion that a messiah will come and deliver us to salvation. In Judaism, counter to Christianity, the belief is that the messiah has not come yet; Jesus Christ is not considered the savior. According to the Islamic faith, God is considered to be eternal and everlasting. He is the Creator and also the Preserver of all- He determines the ultimate cause of life. His attributes are eternal and unchanging, as well. The three major world religions (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) are in basic agreement on the nature of God, though each view varies. In each religion, God is considered to be a supernatural being that is omnipotent and omniscient. But this definition is not consistent with all religions. In Hinduism, the supreme God, Brahman, is actually embodied in the various gods and goddesses worshipped. Similarly, there are numerous gods worshipped in Shintoism. Buddhism is generally considered to be a religion, though there is no belief in God necessary. Given that there are so many religions that maintain different views on what the exact nature of God is, it is only natural to reach the conclusion that there can be no God. If each religion’s God exists, God’s nature is questionable- many religions assume that their God is the supreme being and coexisting with other supreme beings would be counter to their definitions of God. This means that we must consider that no religion is right if there does exist a God. Leaving religion out of the discussion, we must define God in some manner, unrestrained by the concepts of religious dogma. For the purposes of discussion, we can define God as an omnipotent, all-benevolent, and omniscient being that exists outside of time and space. However, this definition can not be true. Consider the problem of evil. Since there is evil in the world, God must not be entirely good or God must not be all-powerful. We can then change the definition to state that God is either all-powerful but not wholly benevolent, or God is all-good but not omnipotent. This weakens the case for God, and the fact that we must alter our definition demonstrates the flimsiness of the argument that God exists. |
| 9 Comments |
| Proofs of God's non-existence |
| 06.13.04 (7:35 pm) [edit] |
|
Over the next couple of blogs, I will be presenting some ideas concerning the existence of God. I hope to explain why it is I would contend that no such being exists. This is sort of a work in progress, so your comments will help to make me better clarify things, and maybe consider alternate ideas, as well. There are 6 parts to this, but I doubt that I will get around to posting all 5 at once, as they are not all complete as of yet. However, here are the 6 basic themes: Proofs of God’s non-existence 1. Considering the number of various religions and alternate definitions of God, there can be no God. 2. Pascal’s wager in reverse- if there is no God and we spend our lives believing and acting as though there is, we lose quite a bit. 3. Traditional arguments offer no proof- all rely on assumption. 4. To base one’s life on the possibility of a God is destructive and demeaning to life. 5. Morality is truer when applied by the individual, not on the basis of religious doctrine. 6. The evolutionary theory of morality- we have come to learn what is right and wrong in terms of what is beneficial to our survival and what is dangerous. Also, let me preface this with the acknowledgment that it is rather illogical to attempt to prove a negative. There is no way for me to actually prove that something does not exist. However, I can give reasons that explain the doubtful nature of God's existence. |
| 15 Comments |
